Filed: Nov. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7118 CASEY LEWIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEVERN COHEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:18-cv-02067-DCN) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casey Lewis, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7118 CASEY LEWIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEVERN COHEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:18-cv-02067-DCN) Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018 Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Casey Lewis, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7118
CASEY LEWIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEVERN COHEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:18-cv-02067-DCN)
Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Casey Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Casey Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. The district court
referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The
magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Lewis that failure to file
timely, specific objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a
district court order based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is
necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the
parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,
766
F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985). Lewis
has waived appellate review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the
appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2